Iran attempts to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador

I also think it's interesting that the Iran diplomatic front has been so quiet for so long, until now. Usually it's some publicized revelation about their progressing nuclear capabilities that sends the state department into a frenzy of trying unsuccessfully to drum up international support for increasing the pressure on Iran.

What seems clear is that behind the scenes the Obama administration likely remains under constant pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia to do more, but there hasn't been any new public hook for a long time, to hang the hat on for upping the stakes.

One possibility is that there is some new undisclosed information about Iran's nuclear program, something delicate and/or frightening enough that they don't want the American people to know about it, but something that has encouraged Israel and Saudi Arabia to help the White House lay a foundation for military action.

In that sense, I agree with Gonk that the way Clinton and Biden sprang into action is unnerving.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I've become convinced in the last few years that Obama's foreign policy is fundamentally as evil as George Bush's, but potentially even more insidious.

I think that might just be it: "upping the stakes" may be the goal in and of itself.

That is, if a war WERE to come, this could be one of a number of reasons for the justification. Something to help take away "the benefit of the doubt" for Iran in the minds of the public in the future.

A trumped-up crisis on its own doesn't do much. BUT -- further on down the line, a trumped-up crisis lumped in along with a list of other items might help to contribute to something larger. So when a war did come and someone more interested in defending their party than their country... and it could be an Obama Democrat or a Romney Republican... gives reasons why their favored administration was right to do what they did, this could be part of a laundry list of reasons?

Reason #8 was made up? Well it was so LONG AGO, you know, and we've got all these other reasons... and isn't it beside the point when the executive order to bomb Tehran's already been given?

The point might not be to convince anyone that anything happened. The point might be just to plant a seed of doubt, or seeds of further doubt. An attempt to create a narrative out of something that is not as bad as it would otherwise seem. A form of gaslighting on an entire populace.

Certainly Iran would have nothing to benefit from assassinating ambassadors, who have no executive power or influence.

To add to what LtNOWIS said, this Ambassador is the most influential person in Saudi Arabia outside of the Royal Family, and one of the close friends and most trusted advisors of the King.

I still think Iran is behind this, until I see evidence they weren't, but the implications are troubling. Either they're crazier than we thought, or they're losing control, or they they need an outside threat to rally the people and raise oil prices.

If Iran isn't behind this, I really doubt Americans are behind this. This came out of nowhere. If anything, the Mossad staged this, knowing it would fail, but hopefully spur America and Saudi Arabia to finally help them attack Iran. Or maybe Saudi Arabia itself is behind it, as payback for Iran allegedly aiding the protests in Bahrain and elsewhere. Americans have no interest to start a war there, and this really came out of nowhere. If someone else is behind it, only Israel and Saudi Arabia could possibly make sense, but I'm not going to give much thought to those conspiracy theories until we have evidence and good reasons to doubt the official story.

It's also worth noting that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact, so a war with one will be a war with both.

Our government really should have kept this entire incident under wraps. Whether it's a false alarm, or if the Iranians intended for this to fail, the president needs to be able to act with as much discretion as possible. Now that the public has been dragged into this it's going to be much more difficult to act with restraint if that's what the situation calls for.

But I don't think this action alone, if this was all it was(a hit against a Saudi diplomat on U.S. soil) is enough alone to warrant war.

Strictly speaking, it is enough to warrant a war under international law, just like on a technical level Saddam's forces firing even one bullet at our fighters enforcing the no-fly zone was enough to justify a resumption of hostilities. (Specifically, shooting at our planes violated the cease-fire agreement, which meant that legally we were no longer bound by our side of it and hostilities could resume without warning.)

The question isn't whether it is enough to warrant a war, but whether war is the best response, and whether there would be sufficient public support for such a war.

Our government really should have kept this entire incident under wraps. Whether it's a false alarm, or if the Iranians intended for this to fail, the president needs to be able to act with as much discretion as possible. Now that the public has been dragged into this it's going to be much more difficult to act with restraint if that's what the situation calls for.

Maybe there have been a string of incidents like this that have been kept under wraps for years, and they just decided to let this particularly bold and reckless attempt go public?

And yeah, Kimball basically said what I was trying to say earlier. This is a technically is a just cause for war.

But I'm hoping that we investigate and find the Iranian regime is close to collapse anyways. Then we can support their rebels like we did in Libya, if it has to come to that, but nothing more. I really hope they can collapse and get a friendlier and more democratic government even without our involvement. Iran is one of those 3 problem countries left for us in the Muslim world, Syria and Pakistan being the other two. It would be miraculous for us if Syria and Iran were to go the way of Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. But that's probably wishful thinking.

I just wanted to post what happened when I was at the BART station waiting for a bus. This very nice, late 60's man told me he was from Iran and he wanted to assure me that not all Iranians are crazy, just their president. So, yeah, maybe the president of Iran is crazy enough to attempt something this stupid.

I just wanted to post what happened when I was at the BART station waiting for a bus. This very nice, late 60's man told me he was from Iran and he wanted to assure me that not all Iranians are crazy, just their president. So, yeah, maybe the president of Iran is crazy enough to attempt something this stupid.

Duh, you think so?

Anywho, Iranians are great people overall and Tim Greenberg & Jason Jones of The Daily Show can attest to such a fact.

Another reason for why the American people may seem to be more indifferent about this than they have been in the past with other international issues is because of the economy. People have other things on their mind ATM.

The Zetas would not have bombed them due to the fact that they would awaken the sleeping giant that is the US military. The drug war of Mexico would have been over shortly for the Zetas cause the US military would have come down hard and strong. Plus the other gangs would have let the Zetas shrivel on the vine for their bad decision. The gangs of Mexico do not bring the level of violence we hear about on the news, to the states.

But perhaps the most important event is a forthcoming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, expected next week. For the first time, the agency is expected to describe, in detail, the evidence it has collected suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with warhead designs, nuclear detonation systems and specialized triggering devices that can be explained only as work on a nuclear weapon.

The world will not tolerate a U.S. and/or Israel strike to knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities. The political costs of that undertaking would be enormous.

However, if we could arrange a pretext for an attack, such as Iran committing an act of war, well... at least then our government would have the backing of the American people.

I'm really nervous about it. Skeptical, but nervous. I feel like something has changed, and the Obama administration is now fed up with Iran.

And now they no longer have our hikers, and Iraq no longer needs to worry about being drawn into the conflict.

In fact, now that I think of it, our withdrawal from Iraq could be the reason for something like this. To prevent Iran from further destabilizing Iraq. Like how one of the reasons we went into Libya was to prevent Gadhafi from not only massacring Benghazi but also destabilizing the new governments in Tunisia and Egypt.

I still think we should wrap things up with Syria first, especially since they've already broken their day-old agreement with the Arab League to stop killing protestors. Unless, since Syria and Iran are allies, they're going to try to take both out at the same time?

I don't know, even if that's true, it sounds too risky for the Obama administration.

But I don't know about the Netanyahu administration and Saudi royalty.